Skip to main content
Advertisement
Home

Main navigation

  • Digital Issue Archive
  • Service Directory
  • Awards
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe now

Secondary

  • Travel Insurance
  • Policies & Partnerships
  • Travel Risk Management
  • Travel Trends
  • Hospitals & Healthcare
  • Industry Moves
  • Reviews
International Hospitals & Healthcare Part of the IH&H family
Part of the
IH&H family
International Hospitals & Healthcare

FCA rejects insurers’ defences over denied Covid-19 BI claims

Policies & Partnerships
7 Jul 2020 | Robyn Bainbridge
Share
Lady Justice

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) insists that insurers have been ‘unduly restrictive’ in their interpretation of policy terms

Keep on reading

Lloyd's covid plan

Lloyd’s presents solutions for a Covid-19 recovery

Lloyd’s of London has published plans for the insurance industry to fast-track global economic and societal recovery from the impacts of Covid-19
2 Jul 2020
|
Clara Bullock

Defences presented by eight insurers which refused to pay claims on business interruption (BI) policies following the Covid-19-imposed lockdown have been rejected by the FCA. The group of insurers includes Hiscox, Arch Insurance, Argenta Syndicate, Ecclesiastical, QBE UK, Royal & Sun Alliance and Zurich Insurance, many of which argued that policies were not designed to cover pandemics, and that businesses would have likely suffered the same losses if they had remained open during the lockdown.

The FCA received over 90 submissions from policyholders and other stakeholders commenting on the insurers’ defences, which it considered when drafting its response.

It has been reported that in the test case brought forward by the High Court, the FCA dictated that defences fail to account for the true nature of the insurance sold to buyers – often small businesses and unsophisticated buyers of insurance with low limits of indemnity for BI cover.

The FCA accused the insurers of adopting ‘unduly restrictive’ meanings of particular words such as ‘prevention’ and ‘occurrence’, and argued that their defences rely on ‘approaches to proof as to the presence of Covid-19’ and ‘causal tests prescribing unrealistic, impractical counterfactuals, depriving the cover clause of much of its apparent and intended scope’: “None of which reflects what the reasonable person in the position of the parties would understand.”

Back in May, a French court ruled that AXA should pay a restaurant owner two months’ worth of revenue losses caused by the coronavirus outbreak, despite AXA arguing that its policy did not cover business disruptions resulting from the health crisis. Rulings like this provide a ray of hope for the hospitality industry, and other businesses, that they may yet recover from the severe impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

An update on the FCA case is expected on the 10 July.

Policies & Partnerships
7 Jul 2020
Share

Robyn Bainbridge

Robyn Bainbridge edits the International Hospitals & Healthcare Review and is a writer and copy-editor for both ITIJ and AirMed&Rescue. Six years a freelance writer, she enjoys injecting a fresh take on a tired topic and is a keen advocate of sustainable tourism. She also has over 15 species of plants in her living room.

Keep on reading

No results

There are no results available matching your search term.

Why subscribe to ITIJ?

In-depth analysis

In-depth analysis

Unique insights and expert opinions on the latest industry developments

A wider perspective

A wider perspective

Get the global view on the topics that are trending in your region

Breaking news

Breaking news

ITIJ.com has all the latest news relevant to travel insurance and IPMI professionals

Subscribe now
ITIJ IH&H

Footer menu

  • About Us
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Voyageur
International Travel & Health Insurance Conferences

Social

  • LinkedIn link
  • Twitter link

© Voyageur Publishing & Events 2026

Close